Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > > You can > > get around the "deemed to have not happened" by saying that one can't > > deem the impossible. That "deemed" language was always a tricky one > > in any case (similar to the sort of tricky things that happen with > > ratification). > > ...But then

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > > ("time-travelly paradoxy sci-fi smeg" --Red Dwarf) > > And now my head hurts, serves me right. TIMEY-WIMEY: Appropriate if the Judge hand-waves on the nature of spacetime and the gamestate to arbitrarily make a decision that may or may not be consistent

DIS: Re: BUS: Giving it a shot

On 14 Jun 2013 00:21, "Flameshadowxeroshin" wrote: > > I become active. Hello! -- Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: May as well try to settle this, I think

Kerim Aydin, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:58:26 -0700 : For that matter, is the card paradox still compelling? I had a look at the current ruleset and I'd guess that nowadays the card paradox would be resolved by R1030 ("In a conflict between rules...") or R2240 ("In a conflict between clauses of the same